This is a typical response from a statistics viewpoint - problem is, these
games aren't being played by computers - they are being played by human
beings.

A human's perception of random is very different from a statistically valid
random - and therein lies the rub.

Over and over and over again - I see patterns of 3 in EQ. Drops -
skillgain - whathaveyou. Nadda for the longest time - then 3 in a row.

People notice patterns - especially favorable ones.

What I've advocated for some time is a different look at randomness. Random
yes - but modified so that within any number of given instances - if a
positive doesn't turn up (like a drop) it is subsituted. I once camped the
SBS for 7 straight hours - killing every single one - nothing - then 3 in a
row. Why should anyone have to camp for that length of time for one item?

That is one reason some folks term this game Evercamp.

At 10:49 AM 6/12/00 -0700, you wrote:

>umm, do you know what ''random'' means? and have you taken any statistics

courses?

>do you honestly think that a sample size of 7 is statistically significant

for a typical

>random number generator?
>
>here's an example. a pair of dice has 36 possible combinations. roll the

dice 7 times.

>even assuming you don't duplicate any of those combinations during those 7

rolls, that

>means you haven't rolled 29 of those combinations. by the stats you've

accumulated

>they have a 0% chance of occurring. obviously false. and that's only 36

combinations.